Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

There are various ways to account for it, including the addition of a new particle, called a sterile neutrino, to the Standard Model - the best tested theory of particle physics.

The sterile neutrino would represent the fourth type - or flavour - of neutrino; but while the other three are well known to physicists, attempts to detect a fourth with experiments have not come up with much.

Another possibility is that dark energy behaves in a different way now compared with how it did in the early history of the cosmos.

"One promising way is if we don't have dark matter be so perfectly 'collision-less' but it could interact with radiation in the early Universe," Prof Riess said.

He has submitted a paper with his latest analysis of the Hubble Constant for publication in a journal.

So basically the LCMD model is broken, and the only way to fix it is to tinker with the properties of one or more of it's metaphysical components and/or add another one (sterile neutrinos).

When is enough enough anyway? LCDM hasn't ever correctly "predicted" anything. It's all been a postdicted fit to some observation or another and it's track record in the lab is utterly atrocious. ICE Cube just completed a major search of sterile neutrinos and found nothing, so why would they even consider it? The can't even tell if the 'fix' should occur by adding a new exotic particle, tinkering with dark energy, or futzing with the metaphysical properties of exotic forms of matter that have failed every test to date in the lab.

The rationalizations for keeping LCDM alive in the 21st century are getting weirder and weirder by the year. When the Webb Telescope starts returning images, they need to tweak the metaphysics again too.

LCDM is the biggest disaster in the history of physics. It's worse than the whole epicycle fiasco because they blow billions of dollars on 'tests', that all fail, and yet the metaphysical dogma continues unabated.

I think in a hundred years people will look back at LCDM theory and wonder how a supposedly 'modern' scientific society could possibly 'hold belief" in a cosmology model that includes so many metaphysical/supernatural constructs. It will just seem as absurd to them in a century as it does to us now.

It's not like LCDM has ever really "predicted" much of anything, certainly nothing that has panned out at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T, etc. In terms of astronomy, it's been one big 'postdicted' fit to observation after another, from start to finish, with four different metaphysical fudge factors and now they still need to tweak it some more.

I'd much rather stick to standard particle physics, ordinary circuit theory, and plasma physics and explain whatever I can explain in space based on empirical physics. Even if it's only 6 percent of the observations in space, it's still "better" than LCDM, a model that is 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance, and it can't even explain a simple solar corona.

I really hope that JWST launches safely and performs as expected. It will revolutionize astronomy as surely as the Hubble Space telescope revolutionized astronomy. It's images are going to favor pure empirical physical explanations.

The sheer number of we're-gonna-hafta-completely-change-our-theories and we-have-absolutely-no-idea-what-that-is statements flowing out of the standard model brigade is so vast and so constant that the only thing keeping the thing hanging together is its own momentum and the general remoteness of the subject matter. If the corrupt news media wasn't off attacking all its moral phantoms day in and day out instead of reporting real things, and if humanity actually had an interest in wonder and knowledge instead of tabloidism and selfie sticks, that model would be dead already.

I can't see how this isn't a paradigm change. I'm old enough to have seen a few but this trend is so significant it can't rationally be expected to not be a foundational shift.

I like that you used metaphysical. Along with a new cosmological model should come a new model of origin and existence. Of philosophy. If we think the LCDM is fanciful, let's take a gander at the black hole-sized conundrum spontaneous existence creates. Of all its disasters, humanity's most fateful step was ceasing to ponder that...

1. Redshift due to plasma fits better to observed data than expansion. a. No need for dark energy or dark unicorns. b. Plasma Redshift is reproducible in the laboratory.

2. Quasars and Pulsars fit better to a static universe.

3. Age of expanding universe does not add up. It does for a static universe. a. Observation of very old galaxies and old stars. b. No need for dark matter. c. No need for primordial black holes.

4. The back ground radiation had no relationship with cosmic expansion. a. Black body radiation can only be emitted by condensed matter, not by collapsing matter. b. The cosmic maps are crated with wrong analysis. Signal is subtracted from signal. The data we see is the data collected from earth, not from free space. c. New observations continue to invalidate older estimations. (Curve-fitting)

5. There is no physical evidence for dark matter or dark energy. a. These concepts are just made up to prevent falsification. b. Acceleration in galaxies are now related to plasma and not to invisible stuff.

It seems that there is nothing left, except: "I must get the results that fits my narrative so I can get my paper into Nature.."

Yet they do take it very seriously, AND criticize anyone who question the metaphysical.

It is partially due to the education system that is combined with science.Scientists often believe that you are uneducated if you question the weird ideas.But the belief that they are hold is also very strong.The belief seems to be that maths can say more about reality than observations.That only works if the model is correct.So when there is a mismatch, they hold on to the model and bend or neglect the observations instead.

So instead of science they LCDM started a religion.

But my question again.. Is anything of the LCDM still standing?To me it seems that the LCDM has been falsified on every point.

Yet they do take it very seriously, AND criticize anyone who question the metaphysical.

It is partially due to the education system that is combined with science.Scientists often believe that you are uneducated if you question the weird ideas.But the belief that they are hold is also very strong.The belief seems to be that maths can say more about reality than observations.That only works if the model is correct.So when there is a mismatch, they hold on to the model and bend or neglect the observations instead.

So instead of science they LCDM started a religion.

But my question again.. Is anything of the LCDM still standing?To me it seems that the LCDM has been falsified on every point.

That's a fair assessment. Their dark matter claims have been a multi-billion dollar waste of money. Their dark energy claims see to require strong manipulation of the raw data, and the Planck data shows hemispheric variations that defy Guth's original claims about a homogeneous layout of matter. What's left?

In James P. Hogan’s “Giants” stories, a 50,000-year-old off-shoot of humanity, trusted to “watch” over our development, is discovered to be systematically dogging Terrestrial developments in science and society in order to keep us backward. It is part of an ancient rivalry. The stubborn mysticism deeply rooted in real-world physics sometimes makes me wonder if Hogan’s fanciful tale could be true.